内蒙古中部地区土壤金龟子群落特征研究
|
摘要
金龟总科Scarabaeoidea是鞘翅和中一个较为重要的类群,在温带草原地区有着丰富的种类分布,其中大部分种类在自然生态系统中有重要的经济价值和生态意义,特别是粪食性金龟子与放牧生态系统的物质循环密切相关。本文从土壤动物学角度,对内蒙古中部地区7种生境(典型草原、草甸草原、沙地、荒漠草原、农田、退耕地和人工林地)中的金龟子群落组成、物种多样性、对放牧强度变化的响应、在物质循环中的作用等进行了研究,结果如下:
1.内蒙古中部地区有土壤金龟子8科24属77种。其中,植食性金龟子3科14属22种,主要为鳃金龟科、丽金龟科和花金龟科的种类;粪食腐食性种类5科10属55种,主要为金龟科、蜉金龟科、粪金龟科、皮金龟科和红金龟科的种类。区域广布种属于群落中个体数量极高的种,区域狭布种为群落中个体数量极低的种。无个体数量较高的区域狭布种,即优势的特有种。但在区域广布种中,有对某种生境有偏宜分布的种。因子分析聚类的结果,7个土壤金龟子群落分为2类,典型草原、草甸草原、沙地、荒漠草原等分布于干旱、半干旱草原地区的4个土壤金龟子群落归为一类,农田、退耕地和人工林地等分布于半湿润农牧交错区的3个土壤金龟子群落归为一类。
2.群落优势种为蜉金龟科一种Aphodius sp_(16)、直蜉金龟、蜉金龟科一种Aphodius sp_(21)。常见种为小驼嗡蜣螂、黑缘嗡蜣螂、双顶嗡蜣螂、游荡蜉金龟。不同生境中金龟子群落的组成大体一致,主要的区别在于常见种和稀少种的不同。粪食性金龟子在空间分布上可分为5类:① 草地类,如:Aphodius sp_(16)、黑缘嗡蜣螂、游荡蜉金龟、双顶嗡蜣螂等。② 沙地类,如:Onthophagus sp_1、中华嗡蜣螂、绣红金龟、台风蜣螂等。③ 荒漠类,如:粪金龟属一种。④ 农田类,如:直蜉金龟、Aphodius sp_(21)、Aphodius sp_1、Aphodius sp_9、Aphodius sp_(20)、臭蜣螂等。⑤ 全域类,如:小驼嗡蜣螂、Aphodius sp_(14)。在发生的时间顺序上可分为4类:① 春季发生,如:Aphodius sp_(16)、黑缘嗡蜣螂、叉角粪金龟等。② 夏季发生,如:Aphodius sp_(19)、游荡蜉金龟、Aphodius sp_3、粪堆粪金龟、Onthophagus sp_1、墨侧
Soil scarab (Scarabaeoidea) is an important group of Coleoptera. They have a rich species distribution in temperate zone. Most of them have important economic and ecological value. In this paper, the features of soil scarab community, species diversity, the responses to the changes of grazing pressures, as well as their functions in the material cycle of grazing ecosystem were studied.1. In Inner Mongolia median region, we chose 7 habitats as the sampling sites. They are typical steppe, meadow steppe, sandy land, desert steppe, farmland, quit ploughing farmland and artificial woodland. During the 2003-2004 sampling period, a total of 8 families, 24 genera, 77 species have been collected. Among them, there are shytophagous scarab beetles belonging to 3 families, 14 genera, 22 species, and coprophagous and saprophagous scarab beetles of 5 families, 10 genera, 55 species. Eurychoric species are the soil scarabs which individual number is higher. The individual number of stenochoric species is lower. There are no stenochoric species which individual number is comparatively higher. Among the eurychoric species, there are someone which can select distributing in fix habitats. The result of factor analysis showed that 7 soil scarab communities can divided into 2 kinds. One includes the soil scarab communities of typical steppe, meadow steppe, sandy land and desert steppe, another is composed by the soil scarab communities of farmland, quit ploughing farmland and artificial woodland.2. The dominant species of soil scarab community are Aphodius sp16, A. rectus Motschlsky and A. sp21. Onthophagus gibbulus(Pallas), O.marginalis nigrimargo Goidanish, O. bivertex Heyden and A. erratcus (L.) are the common species of the soil scarab community. Species compositions of different soil scarab communities are approximately same. The main differences are that they have different common species and rare species.According to the features of spatial distribution, all of the coprophagous and saprophagous scarab beetles can be divided into 5 groups: ① grassland species, such as A. sp16, O. marginalis mgrimargo Goidanish, A. erratcus (L.) and O. bivertex Heyden, etc. ② sandy land species, such as O. sp1, O. sinicus Zhang et Wang, Ochodaeus ferrugineus Eschscholtz, Scarabaeus typhon Fischer, ete. ③desert steppe species, such as Geotrupidius sp. ④farmland species, such as Arectus Motschlsky, A. sp21, A. sp1, A. sp9, A. sp20, Copra ochus Motschulsky, ete. ⑤eurychoric species, such
as O. gibbulus(Pal\as), A.According to the occurring time of the coprophagous and saprophagous scarab beetles, they can be divided into 4 groups: occurring in spring, such as A. sp>6^ O. marginalis nigrimargo Goidanish^ Ceratophyus polyceros(?a\las), etc. ? occurring in summer, such as A. spi9, A. erraticus (L.), A. sp3, Geotrupes stercorarius(L.), O. spi, Gymnopleurus mopsus(Pallas), etc. ?occurring in autumn, such as A. rectus Motschlsky, A. sp2i, A. SP20, A. spi, A. sp9, O. sinicus Zhang et Wang, A. hctroldianus Balthasar, etc. ?occurring in all the year, such as O. bivertex Heyden, O. gibbulus (Pallas), Ceratophyus fischeri Fischeri, 4- sp22, etc.3. The soil scarab species-dominance curves in typical steppe and sandy land are mostly representation. They are reasonable in utilizing environmental resources, the condition of species competition, collocating for the species niches. They are the fitness environments for the soil scarab communities. It is the reverse conditions that aridity condition in desert steppe and shade condition in artificial woodland are the main restricting factors for the development of soil scarab community.Typical steppe possess of the bigger area in temperate zone. It has a longer time for the succession. The sandy land is the intrazonal habitat in the study region. The environmental conditions are atrocious than that of temperate grassland. The spatial heterogeneity of topographty is higher. So the community stability and species diversity of soil scarab are all relatively higher in the two habitats. Comparing to the grassland sampling sites, farmland and artificial woodland are in different climatic region and human activities are high frequency. The species diversities are relatively lower. The or *er of favorableness of ecological factors for the occurring of soil scarab is annual rainfall > humidity > >\Q°C accumulated temperature of annual > altitude.4. The spatial and time niches of main soil scarab species are obviously different-tiation. They -occupied the special niches in habitats. The indice of the common species niche breadth are bigger. On the other hand, degrees of their spatial niches overlap are more. According to the spatial niches differentiation of main species, they can divided into three groups. One of them mainly distributed in grassland habitat, such as Aphodius spi6- The other group mainly distributed in farmland, such as Aphodius sp2i- Third group distributed in sandy land habitat, such as Onthophagus bivertex Heyden.5. As the grazing pressure increased, the individual number of soil scarab will decrease. Another obviously tendency is that as the grazing pressure increase the dominance of main species and the composition of rare species will change. The species diversity will increase and the similarity of soil scarab community will decrease. The effects of grazing activity on the guild III and IV are larger than on the guild I and II. Following species are all sensitivity to the grazing activity: A.
erraticus(L.), A. rectos Motschlsk, O. gibbulus(Pallas), Gymnopleurus j?qpiswar(Pallas), O. marginalis nigrimargo Goidanish, 0. bivertex Heyden.With the Indicator Value Method (IndVat), we can choose the bioindicators for the changes of environment that caused by some factors. For the degeneration of the steppe that caused by grazing activity, A. sp4, A. spa and Ceratophyus fischeri Fischeri can be used as characteristic species. Following species can be used as detector species: 0. spi, A. spi6, A. sp22, O. marginalis nigrimargo Goidanish, O. gibbulus(Pdllas), A. sp9, A. spn.6. The bio-enrichment of different chemical element is different in soil scarab. Comparatively, the amount of K bio-enrichment in soil scarab is higher, and the amount of Cu bio-enrichment is lower. Because the biomass of soil scarab is different in different habitats, so the amount of chemical element bio-enrichment is different In typical steppe and farmland, the amount of bio-enrichment is higher man that of in desert steppe.Mammal feces can be the pools of material in grazing ecosystem. Two factors can effect its material releasing. They are biotie factors and abiotic factors. As the biotic factor, soil scarab can intake the material into their body. Through activating in the mammal feces to change its physical constructions, and regulating its process of decomposition.
1.内蒙古中部地区有土壤金龟子8科24属77种。其中,植食性金龟子3科14属22种,主要为鳃金龟科、丽金龟科和花金龟科的种类;粪食腐食性种类5科10属55种,主要为金龟科、蜉金龟科、粪金龟科、皮金龟科和红金龟科的种类。区域广布种属于群落中个体数量极高的种,区域狭布种为群落中个体数量极低的种。无个体数量较高的区域狭布种,即优势的特有种。但在区域广布种中,有对某种生境有偏宜分布的种。因子分析聚类的结果,7个土壤金龟子群落分为2类,典型草原、草甸草原、沙地、荒漠草原等分布于干旱、半干旱草原地区的4个土壤金龟子群落归为一类,农田、退耕地和人工林地等分布于半湿润农牧交错区的3个土壤金龟子群落归为一类。
2.群落优势种为蜉金龟科一种Aphodius sp_(16)、直蜉金龟、蜉金龟科一种Aphodius sp_(21)。常见种为小驼嗡蜣螂、黑缘嗡蜣螂、双顶嗡蜣螂、游荡蜉金龟。不同生境中金龟子群落的组成大体一致,主要的区别在于常见种和稀少种的不同。粪食性金龟子在空间分布上可分为5类:① 草地类,如:Aphodius sp_(16)、黑缘嗡蜣螂、游荡蜉金龟、双顶嗡蜣螂等。② 沙地类,如:Onthophagus sp_1、中华嗡蜣螂、绣红金龟、台风蜣螂等。③ 荒漠类,如:粪金龟属一种。④ 农田类,如:直蜉金龟、Aphodius sp_(21)、Aphodius sp_1、Aphodius sp_9、Aphodius sp_(20)、臭蜣螂等。⑤ 全域类,如:小驼嗡蜣螂、Aphodius sp_(14)。在发生的时间顺序上可分为4类:① 春季发生,如:Aphodius sp_(16)、黑缘嗡蜣螂、叉角粪金龟等。② 夏季发生,如:Aphodius sp_(19)、游荡蜉金龟、Aphodius sp_3、粪堆粪金龟、Onthophagus sp_1、墨侧
Soil scarab (Scarabaeoidea) is an important group of Coleoptera. They have a rich species distribution in temperate zone. Most of them have important economic and ecological value. In this paper, the features of soil scarab community, species diversity, the responses to the changes of grazing pressures, as well as their functions in the material cycle of grazing ecosystem were studied.1. In Inner Mongolia median region, we chose 7 habitats as the sampling sites. They are typical steppe, meadow steppe, sandy land, desert steppe, farmland, quit ploughing farmland and artificial woodland. During the 2003-2004 sampling period, a total of 8 families, 24 genera, 77 species have been collected. Among them, there are shytophagous scarab beetles belonging to 3 families, 14 genera, 22 species, and coprophagous and saprophagous scarab beetles of 5 families, 10 genera, 55 species. Eurychoric species are the soil scarabs which individual number is higher. The individual number of stenochoric species is lower. There are no stenochoric species which individual number is comparatively higher. Among the eurychoric species, there are someone which can select distributing in fix habitats. The result of factor analysis showed that 7 soil scarab communities can divided into 2 kinds. One includes the soil scarab communities of typical steppe, meadow steppe, sandy land and desert steppe, another is composed by the soil scarab communities of farmland, quit ploughing farmland and artificial woodland.2. The dominant species of soil scarab community are Aphodius sp16, A. rectus Motschlsky and A. sp21. Onthophagus gibbulus(Pallas), O.marginalis nigrimargo Goidanish, O. bivertex Heyden and A. erratcus (L.) are the common species of the soil scarab community. Species compositions of different soil scarab communities are approximately same. The main differences are that they have different common species and rare species.According to the features of spatial distribution, all of the coprophagous and saprophagous scarab beetles can be divided into 5 groups: ① grassland species, such as A. sp16, O. marginalis mgrimargo Goidanish, A. erratcus (L.) and O. bivertex Heyden, etc. ② sandy land species, such as O. sp1, O. sinicus Zhang et Wang, Ochodaeus ferrugineus Eschscholtz, Scarabaeus typhon Fischer, ete. ③desert steppe species, such as Geotrupidius sp. ④farmland species, such as Arectus Motschlsky, A. sp21, A. sp1, A. sp9, A. sp20, Copra ochus Motschulsky, ete. ⑤eurychoric species, such
as O. gibbulus(Pal\as), A.According to the occurring time of the coprophagous and saprophagous scarab beetles, they can be divided into 4 groups: occurring in spring, such as A. sp>6^ O. marginalis nigrimargo Goidanish^ Ceratophyus polyceros(?a\las), etc. ? occurring in summer, such as A. spi9, A. erraticus (L.), A. sp3, Geotrupes stercorarius(L.), O. spi, Gymnopleurus mopsus(Pallas), etc. ?occurring in autumn, such as A. rectus Motschlsky, A. sp2i, A. SP20, A. spi, A. sp9, O. sinicus Zhang et Wang, A. hctroldianus Balthasar, etc. ?occurring in all the year, such as O. bivertex Heyden, O. gibbulus (Pallas), Ceratophyus fischeri Fischeri, 4- sp22, etc.3. The soil scarab species-dominance curves in typical steppe and sandy land are mostly representation. They are reasonable in utilizing environmental resources, the condition of species competition, collocating for the species niches. They are the fitness environments for the soil scarab communities. It is the reverse conditions that aridity condition in desert steppe and shade condition in artificial woodland are the main restricting factors for the development of soil scarab community.Typical steppe possess of the bigger area in temperate zone. It has a longer time for the succession. The sandy land is the intrazonal habitat in the study region. The environmental conditions are atrocious than that of temperate grassland. The spatial heterogeneity of topographty is higher. So the community stability and species diversity of soil scarab are all relatively higher in the two habitats. Comparing to the grassland sampling sites, farmland and artificial woodland are in different climatic region and human activities are high frequency. The species diversities are relatively lower. The or *er of favorableness of ecological factors for the occurring of soil scarab is annual rainfall > humidity > >\Q°C accumulated temperature of annual > altitude.4. The spatial and time niches of main soil scarab species are obviously different-tiation. They -occupied the special niches in habitats. The indice of the common species niche breadth are bigger. On the other hand, degrees of their spatial niches overlap are more. According to the spatial niches differentiation of main species, they can divided into three groups. One of them mainly distributed in grassland habitat, such as Aphodius spi6- The other group mainly distributed in farmland, such as Aphodius sp2i- Third group distributed in sandy land habitat, such as Onthophagus bivertex Heyden.5. As the grazing pressure increased, the individual number of soil scarab will decrease. Another obviously tendency is that as the grazing pressure increase the dominance of main species and the composition of rare species will change. The species diversity will increase and the similarity of soil scarab community will decrease. The effects of grazing activity on the guild III and IV are larger than on the guild I and II. Following species are all sensitivity to the grazing activity: A.
erraticus(L.), A. rectos Motschlsk, O. gibbulus(Pallas), Gymnopleurus j?qpiswar(Pallas), O. marginalis nigrimargo Goidanish, 0. bivertex Heyden.With the Indicator Value Method (IndVat), we can choose the bioindicators for the changes of environment that caused by some factors. For the degeneration of the steppe that caused by grazing activity, A. sp4, A. spa and Ceratophyus fischeri Fischeri can be used as characteristic species. Following species can be used as detector species: 0. spi, A. spi6, A. sp22, O. marginalis nigrimargo Goidanish, O. gibbulus(Pdllas), A. sp9, A. spn.6. The bio-enrichment of different chemical element is different in soil scarab. Comparatively, the amount of K bio-enrichment in soil scarab is higher, and the amount of Cu bio-enrichment is lower. Because the biomass of soil scarab is different in different habitats, so the amount of chemical element bio-enrichment is different In typical steppe and farmland, the amount of bio-enrichment is higher man that of in desert steppe.Mammal feces can be the pools of material in grazing ecosystem. Two factors can effect its material releasing. They are biotie factors and abiotic factors. As the biotic factor, soil scarab can intake the material into their body. Through activating in the mammal feces to change its physical constructions, and regulating its process of decomposition.
引文
[1] 尹文英.中国土壤动物.北京:科学出版社.2000,1-2.
[2] 尹文英.土壤动物研究近况.生命科学.1993,5(3):1-4.
[3] 由文辉.我国土壤动物学研究概况与展望.土壤学进展,1994,22(4):11-17.
[4] 何冬梅,刘永江,由文辉,等.内蒙古草原土壤动物生态学研究Ⅰ:锡林河流域草原土壤动物的初步调查.见草原生态系统研究(内部资料),第五集,1985:118-123.
[5] 刘永江,刘新民,乾德门.不同牧压对草原土壤动物的影响.见草原生态系统研究.北京:科学出版社.1997,5:62-69.
[6] 刘永江,刘新民,郭砺.内蒙古草原地带土壤动物生态学研究.中国草地,1999,3:51-56.
[7] 刘新民,刘永江,郭砺.内蒙古草原地带不同生境土壤动物比较研究.内蒙古大学学报(自然科学版).1999,30(1):74-77.
[8] 何冬梅,由文辉,李喜和,等.锡林河中游草原生态系统中小型土壤动物与土壤有机质的关系.植物生态学与地植物学学报,1989,13(4):350-358.
[9] 赵晓霞,寺田美奈子.锡林郭勒草原保护区土壤动物初步调查.生态学杂志,1990,9(1):54-56.
[10] 刘永江,刘新民,郭砺.内蒙古草原地带土壤动物生态研究.中国草地,1999,3:51-56.
[11] 刘新民,杨劼.干旱、半干旱区几种典型生境大型土壤动物群落多样性比较研究.中国沙漠,2005,25(2):216-222.
[12] 刘新民,刘永江,郭砺.内蒙古典型草原大型土壤动物群落动态及其在放牧下的变化.草地学报,1999,7(3):228-235.
[13] 刘新民,刘永江,郭砺.腾格里沙漠生态系统土壤动物多样性比较研究.中国沙漠,1999,19(增刊)180-184.
[14] 刘新民,陈海燕,乌宁,郭砺.腾格里沙漠生态系统不同固沙方式下昆虫群落的生态位分异研究.中国沙漠,2002,23(6):566-570.
[15] 刘新民,杨劼.沙坡头地区人工固沙植被演替中大型土壤动物生物指示作用研究.中国沙漠,2005,25(1):40-44.
[16] 殷秀琴.松嫩平原南部草原土壤动物组成与分布的研究.草地学报,1994.3(1):62-70.
[17] 廖崇惠,李健雄,黄海涛.中国亚热带森林土壤动物群落多样性.生态学报,1997,17(5):549-555.
[18] 傅必谦,陈卫,董晓晖,等.北京松山四种大型土壤动物群落组成和结构.生态学报,2002,22(2):215-223.
[19] 刘新民,刘永江,郭砺,等.腾格里沙漠生态系统土壤动物多样性比较研究.中国沙漠,1999,19(supp):180-184.
[20] Halffter G.. Historical and ecological factors determining the geographical distribution of dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae). Folia EntomolOgica Mexicana, 1991. 82: 195-238.
[21] Davis A.J., Holloway J.D.. Huijbregts H., etc. Dung beetles as indicators of changes in forests of northern Borneo. Journal of Applied Ecology, 2002,38: 93-616.
[22] Fincher G T.. The potential value of dung beetles in pasture ecosystems. Journal of Entomological Society, 1981, 16: 316-333.
[23] 郑乐怡,归鸿。昆虫分类。南京:南京师范大学出版社. 1999, 605-615
[24] Davis A.L.V. Nesting of Afrotropical Oniticellus (Coleoptera, Scarabeidae)and its evolutionary trend from soil to dung. Ecologycal Entomology, 1989, 14: 11-21.
[25] Edwards P.B.. Seasonal variation in the dung of African grazing mammals and its consequences for coprophagous insects. Fvnctional Ecology, 1991, 5: 617-628.
[26] Halffter G & Matthews E.G. The natural history of dung beetles of the subfamily Scarabaeinae (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae). Folia EntomolOgica Mexicana, 1966, 12-14: 1-312.
[27] Halffter G. Evolution of nidifcation in the Scarabaeinae (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae). Quae-stiones Entomologicao, 1977, 13: 231-253.
[28] Halffter G & Edmonds W.D.. The nesting behavior of dung beetles (Scarabaeinae): an ecological and evolutive approach. 1982, p. 182. Institute de Ecologia, Mexico D.F..
[29] Fincher GT., Stewart T.B. & Davis R... Attraction of coprophagous beetle to feces of various animals. Journal of Parasitology, 1970, 56: 378-383.
[30] Davis A.L.V.. Associations of Afrotropical Coleoptera (Scarabeidae, Aphodiidae, Staphylinidae Hydrophilidae, Histeridae) with dung and decaying matter: implications for selection of fiy-control agents for Australia. Journal of Natural History, 1994, 28: 383-399.
[31] Martin-Piera & Lobo J.M.. A comparative discussion of trophic preferences in dung beetle communities. Miscellania Zoologica, 1996, 19: 13-31.
[32] Peck S.B. & Howden H.F.. Response of a dung beetle guild to different sizes of dung bait in a Panamanian rainforest. Biotropica, 1984, 16: 235-238.
[33] Horgan F.G. Burial of bovine dung by coprophagous beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabacidae) from hors and cow grazing sites in EI Salvador. Eur.J. Soil Biol., 2001, 37: 103-111.
[34] Hill C.J.. Habitat specificity and food preferences of an assemblage of tropical Australian dung beetles. Journal of Tropical Ecology, 1996, 12: 449-460.
[35] Davis J., Holloway J. D., Huijbregts H.. Dung beetles as indicators of change in the forests of northern Borneo. Journal of Applied Ecology, 2001, 38: 593-616.
[36] Halffter G & Favila M.E.. The Scarabaeinae (Insecta: Coleoptela): an animal proup for analyzing, inventorying and monitoring biodiversity in tropical rainforest and modified landscapes. Biology International, 1993, 27: 15-21.
[37] Favila M.E. & Halffter G. The use of indicator groups for measuring biodiversity as related to community structure and function. Acta Zoologica Mexico, 1997, 72: 1-25.
[38] Howden H. F. & Nealis V. G.. Effects of clearing in a tropical rain forest on the composition of the coprophagous scarab beetle fauna (Coteoptera). Biotropica, 1975, 7: 77-83.
[39] Halffer G., Favila M. E. & Halffter V.. A comparative study of the structure of the scarab guild in Mexican tropical rain forest and derived ecosystems. Folia Entomologica Mexicana, 1992, 84: 131-156.
[40] Hill C. J.. Linear strips of rain forest vegetation as potential dispersal corridors for rain forest insects. Conservation Biology, 1995, 9: 1559-1566.
[41] Davis A. J. & Sutton S. L.. The effects of rainforest canopy loss on arboreal dung beeries in Borneo: implications for the measurement of biodiversity in derived tropical ecosystems. Diversity and Distributions, 1998, 4: 167-173.
[42] Davis A. J.. Does reduced-impact logging help preserve biodiversity on tropical rainforests? A case study from Borneo using dung beetles as indicators. Environmental Entomology, 2000, 29: 467-475.
[43] Klein B. C.. Effects of forest fragmentation on dung and carrion beetle communities in central Amazonia. Ecology, 1989, 70: 1715-1725.
[44] Nummelin M. & Hanski I.. Dung beetles of the Kibale Forest, Uganda: comparison between virgin and managed forest. Journal of Tropical Ecology, 1989, 5: 349-352.
[45] McGeoch M. A.. The selection, testing and application of terrestrial insects as bioindicators. Biological reviews, 1998, 73: 181-201.
[46] Nilsson S. G., Arup U., Baranowski R. and Ekman S.. Tree-dependent lichns and beetles as indicators in conservation forests. Conservation Biology, 1995, 9: 1208-1215.
[47] McGeoch M. A., Rensburg B. J. V. and Botes A.. The verification and application of bioindicators: a case of dung beetles in a Savanna ecosystem. Journal of Applied Ecology, 2002, 39: 661-672
[48] 刘新民,刘永江,乌宁,等.内蒙古典型草原金龟总科昆虫群落动态及对放牧的响应.内蒙古大学学报(自然科擎版),2000,31(4):417-421.
[49] 刘新民,郭砺,乌宁,等.干旱、半干旱地区几种典型生境蛴螬群落特征比较研究.中国沙漠,2001,21(3):250-253.
[50] 刘新民.内蒙古典型草原蛴螬群落特征研究.[学位论文],内蒙古大学图书馆,内蒙古大学,2001.
[51] 袁庆华.高强度放牧对草地蛴螬种群数量的影响.草业学报,1995,4(1):30-35.
[52] 刘广瑞,章有为,王瑞.中国北方常见金龟子彩色图鉴.北京:中国林业出版社,1997,1-3.
[53] 黄人鑫,杜春华,张卫红.新疆金龟甲的区系组成及食性.昆虫学报,1999,42(1):70-77.
[54] 马耀,李鸿昌,康乐.内蒙古草地昆虫.陕西:天则出版社.1991,135-178.
[55] 张芝利.中国经济昆虫志 第二十八册 鞘翅目 金龟总科幼虫.北京:科学出版社,1984.18-93.
[56] 李江霖.雷雪鳃金龟的初步研究.昆虫知识,1987,3:165-167.
[57] 林平.西藏昆虫考察报告.昆虫学报,1965,14(4):390-393.
[58] 林平.中国弧丽金龟属志(鞘翅目:丽金龟科).陕西:天则出版社,1988,1-71.
[59] 能耐扎布.内蒙古昆虫.呼和浩特:内蒙古人民出版社.1999,140-151.
[60] 章有为.中国异爪犀金龟记述.动物分类学报,1983,8(3):297-300.
[61] 章有为.天山托木尔峰地区的生物.北京:科学出版社.1985,99-100.
[62] 章有为.中国犀金龟科系统分类.系统进化动物学论文集(第一集),1991,173-188.
[63] 谭仕东.双结菠萝鳃金龟的生物学特性及防治.昆虫知识,1991,28(1):22-23.
[64] 刘爱芝,李素娟,陶岭梅.花生蛴螬空间分布型研究及药效评价方法探讨.昆虫知识,2003,40(1):45-47.
[65] 刘书润,刘钟龄.内蒙古锡林河流域植物区系纲要.草原生态系统研究(内部资料),第二期,1982,210-262.
[66] 中国植被编辑委员会.中国植被.北京:科学出版社,1980,510-519.
[67] 中国科学院内蒙古宁夏综合考察队.内蒙古气候与农牧业的关系.北京:科学出版社,1976.45-51.
[68] 中国草地编辑委员会.中国草地资源.北京:中国科学技术出版社,1996,193.
[69] 中国科学院内蒙古宁夏综合考察队编.内蒙古植被.北京:科学出版社,1985,467-603.
[70] 李永宏,钟文勤,康乐,等.草原生态系统中不同生物功能类群及土壤因素间的互作和协同变化.见草原生态系统研究.第5集.北京:科学出版社.1997,1-11.
[71] 姜恕.中国科学院内蒙古草原生态系统定位站的建立与研究工作概述.见草原生态系统研究,第1集,北京:科学出版社,1985,1-11.
[72] 刘旭明,苗河,朱柏林.锡林郭勒盟生态环境现状.见张自学.二十世纪末内蒙古生态环境遥感调查研究.呼和浩特:内蒙古人民出版社,2001.260-266.
[73] 章祖同.内蒙古草地资源.呼和浩特:内蒙古人民出版社,1990,167.
[74] 雍世鹏.内蒙古锡林河流域自然植被分布概况.草原生态系统研究,1982,2:1-11.
[75] 陈敏.改良退化草地与建立人工草地的研究.呼和浩特:内蒙古人民出版社,1998.1-10.
[76] 蒙荣.放牧制度对大针茅草原影响的研究.[学位论文],内蒙古大学图书馆,内蒙古大学,2004,13-14.
[77] G. J. Arrow. The fauna of british India. Part Ⅰ. 1910. 1-322,
[78] G. J. Arrow. The fauna of british India. Part Ⅱ. 1917. 1-385.
[79] G. J. Arrow. The fauna of british India. Part Ⅲ. 1949. 1-428.
[80] Mededev S. I.. Fauna of USSR. 1951, Ⅹ.1.
[81] Mededev S. I.. Fauna of USSR. 1952, Ⅹ.2.
[82] Mededev S. I.. Fauna of USSR. 1949, Ⅹ.3.
[83] Mededev S. I.. Fauna of USSR. 1960, Ⅹ.4.
[84] Mededev S. I.. Fauna of USSR. 1964, Ⅹ.5.
[85] Balthasar, V. Monographie der Scarabaeidae und Aphodiidae der palaearktischen und orientalischen Region. 1963, Band Ⅰ, 1-391: Band Ⅱ, 1-627.
[86] 马文珍.中国经济昆虫志 第四十六册 鞘翅目:花金龟科、斑金龟科、弯腿金龟科.北京:科学出版社,1995,19-167
[87] 内蒙古国土资源编辑委员会.内蒙古国土资源.呼和浩特:内蒙古人民出版社,1987,134.
[88] 内蒙古草场资源遥感考察队.内蒙古草场资源遥感应用研究.呼和浩特:内蒙古大学出版社,1987,49.
[89] 中华人民共和国农业部畜牧兽医司全国畜牧兽医总站.中国草地资源.北京:中国科学出版社,1996,150.
[90] 王义凤,雍世鹏,刘钟龄,等.内蒙古植被.北京:科学出版社,1985,448-641.
[91] 李酉开,蒋柏藩,袁可能.土壤农业化学常规分析方法.北京:科学出版社,1983:79-104,244-298.
[92] 李博,杨持,林鹏.生态学.北京:高等教育出版社.2000,117-118;189-196.
[93] 刘新民,乌宁.大针茅草原蛴螬群落特征研究.应用生态学报.2004,15(9):1607-1610.
[94] 张金屯,数量生态学.北京:科学出版社,2004,133-140.
[95] 林红,李自珍.半干旱区作物生态位适宜度模型及水肥调控实验结果的定量分析.兰州大学学报,1998,34(1):100-105.
[96] 李自珍,施维林,唐海萍.等.干旱区植物水分生态位适宜度的数学模型及其过程数值模拟实验研究.中国沙漠,2001,21(3):281-285.
[97] 戈峰.现代生态学.北京:科学出版社,2002.215-221.
[98] A. Jankielsohn, C. H. Scholtz and S. V. Louw. Effect of habitat on dung beetle assemblages a comparison between a south African Nature Reserve and neighboring farms. Environmental Entomology, 2001, 30(3): 174-483.
[99] Grinell J. The niche relationship of the California thrasher. Auk, 1917, 21: 364-382
[100] Elton C. Animal ecology. London: Sidgewick and Jackson, 1927, 63-68
[101] 李自珍,黄子琛,唐海萍.沙区植物种的生态位适宜度过程数值模拟.兰州大学学报(自然科学版),1996,32(2):108-114.
[102] 李自珍,惠苍,徐中民,等.沙区植物生态位构建的数学模型及其应用研究.冰川冻土.2002,24(4):387-392.
[103] 马克平.生物群落多样性的测度方法Ⅰα多样性的测度方法(上).生物多样性,1994,2(3):162-168.
[104] Preston F. W.. The commonness and rarity of species. Ecology, 1948, 29: 254-283.
[105] 黄建辉.物种多样性的空间格局及其形成机制初探.生物多样性,1994,2(2):103-107.
[106] Connell J. H., Eduard O.. The ecological regulation of species diversity. The American Naturalist. 1964. 98: 33-46.
[107] Copley J. Ecology gose underground. Nature, 2000, 406: 452-454.
[108] 赵其国,周健民.为21世纪土壤学的创新发展作出新的贡献.土壤,2002,34(5):237-256.
[109] 《土壤动物研究方法手册》编写组.土壤动物研究方法手册.北京:中国林业出版社.1998, 1-12.
[110] 张荣祖.生态系统中国外土壤动物研究动态.森林生态系统研究.1980,(1):257-264.
[111] 徐国良,莫江明,周国逸,等.土壤动物与N素循环及对N沉降的响应.生态学报.2002,23(11):2453-2463.
[112] Haimi J. Frize H. and Moilanen. Responses of soil decomposer animals to wood-ash fertilization and burning in a coniferous forest stand. Forest Ecology and Management. 2000, 129: 53-61.
[113] Jones C. G., Lawton J. H. and Shachak M. Organisms as ecosystem engineers. Oikos. 1994, 69: 373-386.
[114] Lavelle P. Faunal activities and soil processes: adaptive strategies that determine ecosystem function, In: Etchevers J D, Aguilar A, Nunez R, et al. Eds. Trans. 15th world cong. SoilSci. 1, 1994. 189-220.
[115] 陈鹏,富德义.长白山土壤动物在物质循环中作用的初步探讨.生态学报.1984,4(2):1-9.
[116] Martin Zimmer and Werner Topp. The role of copropgagy in Nutrient release from feces of phytophagous insects. Soil Biology & Biochemistry. 2002, 34: 1093-1099.
[117] Wood T. G.. Field investigations on the decomposition of leaves of Eucalyptus delegatensis in relation to environmental factirs. Pedobiologia, 1974, 14, 343-371.
[118] Hassall M., Turner J. G., Rands, M. R. W.. Effects of terrestrial isopods on the decomposition of woodland leaf litter. Oecologia, 1987, 72, 597-604.
[119] Facelli J. M., Pickett S. T. A.. Plant litter: its dynamics andeffects on paints community structure. Biochemistry, 1991, 18, 595-600.
[120] 贾树海,崔学明,李绍良,等.牧压梯度上土壤物理性质的变化.见草原生态系统研究.北京:科学出版社.1997,5:12-16.
[121] 关世英,齐沛钦,康师安,等.不同牧压强度对草原土壤养分含量的影响初析.见草原生态系统研究.北京:科学出版社.1997,5:17-22.
[122] 李永宏,汪诗平.草原植物对家畜放牧的繁殖对策初探.见草原生态系统研究.北京:科学出版社.1997,5:23-31.
[123] 王梦军,钟文勤,王桂明,等.典型草原区草-鼠群落对对放牧梯度的协同变化.见草原生态系统研究.北京:科学出版社.1997,5:32-42.
[124] 康乐,陈永林.典型草原蝗虫种群数量、生物量和能量的比较研究.见草原生态系统研究.北京:科学出版社.1992,4:141-150.
[125] 柳丽萍,廖仰南.羊草草原和大针茅草原不同牧压下的土壤微生物生物特性及其多样性.见草原生态系统研究.北京:科学出版社.1997,5:70-79.
[126] 顾新运,李淑秋.放牧强度对草原土壤超显微特征的影响.见草原生态系统研究.北京:科学出版社.1997,5.80-87.
[127] West N E. Biodiversity of rangelands. J. Range Management, 1993, 46(1): 2-13.
[128] M. A. McGeoch. The selection, testing and application of terrestrial insects as bioindicators. Biotogical Reviews, 1998, 73, 181-201.
[129] 梁文举,葛亭魁,段玉玺.土壤健康及土壤动物生物指示的研究与应用.沈阳农业大学学报,2001-02,32(1):70-72.
[130] A. J. Davis. Does reduced-impact logging help preserve biodiversity on tropical rainforests? A case study from Borneo using dung beetles as indicators. Environmental Entomology, 2000, 29: 467-475.
[131] A. J. Davis, J. D. Holloway, H. Huijbregts. Dung beetles as indicators of change in the forests of northern Borneo. Journal of Applied Ecology, 2001, 38: 593-616.
[132] M. E. Favila & G. Halffter. The use of indicator groups for measuring biodiversity as related to community structure and function. Acta Zoologica Mexico, 1997, 72: 1-25.
[133] 柯欣,岳巧云,傅荣恕,等.浦东滩涂中型土壤动物群落结构及土质酸碱度生物评价分析.动物学研究,2002,23(2):129-135.
[134] Dufrene M. & Legendre P., 1997. Species assemblages and indicator species: the need for a flexible asymmetrical approach. Ecological Monographys, 67: 345-366.
[135] 杨星科.广西十万大山地区昆虫.北京:中国林业出版社,2004,339-3(?)7.
[136] 任国栋,侯麟.皮金龟科的分类研究进展.昆虫知识,2003,40(6):505-508.
[137] 任国栋.中国皮金龟科分类研究.昆虫分类学报,2003,25(2):109-117.
[138] 松树松年.日本昆虫大图鉴.东京:刀江书院,1931,309-322.
[139] 石井悌,江崎悌三,木下周太.日本昆虫图鉴.东京:北隆馆,1957,1304-1321.
[140] 于晓东,罗天宏,周红章.北京东灵山地区金龟群落物种组成及多样性变化.生物多样性,2003,11(3):179-187.
[141] Shibuya T. & Inouchi J.. Fine Stucture and odor responses of olfactory sensilla of the Japanese dung deetle, Copris pecuarius (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Japanese Journal of Applied Entomology and Zoology, 1982, 26: 194-195.
[142] Davis A. L. V.. Appendix 2. Evolution and biogeography of dung beetles in relation to vertebrate dung types with emphasis on the Scarabaeinae and Coprinae. Climatic change, habitat modification and relative age of dung beetle taxa (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae, Hydrophilidae, Histeridae, Staphylinidae) in the south-western Cape. 1990, pp. 72-100. PhD Thesis. University of Cape Town. Cape Town.
[143] Davis A. L. V. & Schottz C. H.. Historical vs, ecological factors influencing global patterns of scaraeine dung beetle diversity. Diversity and Distributions. 2001, 7: 161-174.
[144] Lobo J. M. and Halffter G.. Biogeographical and ecological affecting the altitudinal variation of mountainous communities of Coprophagous beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeoidea): a comparative study. Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 2000, 93(1): 0115-0126.
[145] Halffter G. and Arellano L.. Response of dung beetle diversity to human-induced changes in tropical landscape. Biotropica, 2002, 34(1): 144-154.
[146] Verdu J. R. and Galante E.. Climatic stress, food availability and human activity as determinants of endemism patterns in the Mediterranean region: the case of dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeoidea)in the Iberian Peninsula. Diversity and Distributions, 2002, 8: 259-274.
[147] Hanski I. & Krikken J.. Dung beetles in tropical forest in South-East Asia. Dung beetle ecology (eds Ⅰ. Hanski & Y. Cambefort), 1991, pp. 179-197. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
[148] Hanski I. and Cambefort Y.. Spatial processes. Dung beetle ecology (eds Ⅰ. Hanski & Y. Cambefort), 1991, pp. 283-304. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
[149] Hanski I. and Koskela H.. Resouce partitioning in six guilds of dung-inhabiting beetles (Coleoptera). Ann Entomol Fenn., 1979, 45: 1-12.
[150] Hanski I.. The community of coprophagous beetles (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae and Hydrophilidae) in northern Europe. Ann Entomol Fenn, 1980, 46: 57-73.
[151] Holter P.. Resource utilization and local coexistence in a guild of scarabaeid dung beetles(Aphodius spp.). Oikos, 1982, 39: 213-227.
[152] Gittings T. and Giller P. S.. Life history traits and resource utilisation in an assemblage of north ternperate Aphodius dung beetles(Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Ecography, 1997, 20: 55-66.
[153] Roslin T. and Koivunen A.. Distribution and abundance of dung beetles in fragmented landscapes. Oecologia, 2001, 127: 69-77.
[154] Nealis V. G.. Habitat associations and community analysis of south Texas dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeinae). Canadian Journal of Zoology, 1977, 5: 38—147.
[155] Doube B. M.. The habitat preference of some bovine dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) in Hluhluwe Game Reserve, South Africa. Bulletin of Entomological Research, 1983, 73: 357-371.
[156] Bornemissza G. F.. The Australian dung beetle project 1965-1975. Aust. Meat Res. Commun. Rev., 1976, 30: 1-30.
[157] Edwards P. B., Aschenbom H. H.. Parterns of nesting and dung burial in Onitis dung beetles: implications for pasture productivity and fly control. J. Appl. Ecol., 1987, 24: 837-852.
[158] Tyndale-Biscoe M., Wallace M. M. H., Walker J. M.. Anecologieal study of an Australian dung beetle, Onthophagus granulatus Boheman (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae), using physiological age-grading technique. Bull. Entomol. Res., 1981, 71: 137-152.
[159] Ridsdill-Smith T. J.. Asymmetric competition in cattle dung between two species of Onthophagus dung beetle and the bush fly, Musca vetustissima. Ecol. Entomol., 1993, 18: 241-246.
[160] Ellen Andresen. Dung beetles in a central Amazonian rainforest and their ecological role as secondary seeddispersers. Ecol. Entomol., 2002, 27: 257-270.
[161] Janzen D. H.. Insects at carrion and dung. Costa Rican Natural History (ed. D. H. Janzen). 1983, pp. 640-642. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
[162] Brown J. H.-On the relationship between the abundance and distribution of species. American Naturalist, 1984, 124: 255-279.
[163] Gaston K. J., Blackburn T. M. & Lawton J. H.. Inmterspecific abundance-range size relationships: an appraisal of mechanisms. Journal of Animat Ecology, 1997, 66: 579-601.
[164] Jenkins D. W.. Global biological monitoring. Mans Impact on Terrestrial and Oceanic Ecosystems (eds W. H. Matthews, F. E. Smith & E. D. Goldberg). 1971, pp. 351-370. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
[165] Kremen C., Merenlander A. M. & Murhpy D. D.. Ecological monitoring: a vital need for integrated conservation and development programs in the tropics. Conservation biology, 1994, 8: 388-397.
[2] 尹文英.土壤动物研究近况.生命科学.1993,5(3):1-4.
[3] 由文辉.我国土壤动物学研究概况与展望.土壤学进展,1994,22(4):11-17.
[4] 何冬梅,刘永江,由文辉,等.内蒙古草原土壤动物生态学研究Ⅰ:锡林河流域草原土壤动物的初步调查.见草原生态系统研究(内部资料),第五集,1985:118-123.
[5] 刘永江,刘新民,乾德门.不同牧压对草原土壤动物的影响.见草原生态系统研究.北京:科学出版社.1997,5:62-69.
[6] 刘永江,刘新民,郭砺.内蒙古草原地带土壤动物生态学研究.中国草地,1999,3:51-56.
[7] 刘新民,刘永江,郭砺.内蒙古草原地带不同生境土壤动物比较研究.内蒙古大学学报(自然科学版).1999,30(1):74-77.
[8] 何冬梅,由文辉,李喜和,等.锡林河中游草原生态系统中小型土壤动物与土壤有机质的关系.植物生态学与地植物学学报,1989,13(4):350-358.
[9] 赵晓霞,寺田美奈子.锡林郭勒草原保护区土壤动物初步调查.生态学杂志,1990,9(1):54-56.
[10] 刘永江,刘新民,郭砺.内蒙古草原地带土壤动物生态研究.中国草地,1999,3:51-56.
[11] 刘新民,杨劼.干旱、半干旱区几种典型生境大型土壤动物群落多样性比较研究.中国沙漠,2005,25(2):216-222.
[12] 刘新民,刘永江,郭砺.内蒙古典型草原大型土壤动物群落动态及其在放牧下的变化.草地学报,1999,7(3):228-235.
[13] 刘新民,刘永江,郭砺.腾格里沙漠生态系统土壤动物多样性比较研究.中国沙漠,1999,19(增刊)180-184.
[14] 刘新民,陈海燕,乌宁,郭砺.腾格里沙漠生态系统不同固沙方式下昆虫群落的生态位分异研究.中国沙漠,2002,23(6):566-570.
[15] 刘新民,杨劼.沙坡头地区人工固沙植被演替中大型土壤动物生物指示作用研究.中国沙漠,2005,25(1):40-44.
[16] 殷秀琴.松嫩平原南部草原土壤动物组成与分布的研究.草地学报,1994.3(1):62-70.
[17] 廖崇惠,李健雄,黄海涛.中国亚热带森林土壤动物群落多样性.生态学报,1997,17(5):549-555.
[18] 傅必谦,陈卫,董晓晖,等.北京松山四种大型土壤动物群落组成和结构.生态学报,2002,22(2):215-223.
[19] 刘新民,刘永江,郭砺,等.腾格里沙漠生态系统土壤动物多样性比较研究.中国沙漠,1999,19(supp):180-184.
[20] Halffter G.. Historical and ecological factors determining the geographical distribution of dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae). Folia EntomolOgica Mexicana, 1991. 82: 195-238.
[21] Davis A.J., Holloway J.D.. Huijbregts H., etc. Dung beetles as indicators of changes in forests of northern Borneo. Journal of Applied Ecology, 2002,38: 93-616.
[22] Fincher G T.. The potential value of dung beetles in pasture ecosystems. Journal of Entomological Society, 1981, 16: 316-333.
[23] 郑乐怡,归鸿。昆虫分类。南京:南京师范大学出版社. 1999, 605-615
[24] Davis A.L.V. Nesting of Afrotropical Oniticellus (Coleoptera, Scarabeidae)and its evolutionary trend from soil to dung. Ecologycal Entomology, 1989, 14: 11-21.
[25] Edwards P.B.. Seasonal variation in the dung of African grazing mammals and its consequences for coprophagous insects. Fvnctional Ecology, 1991, 5: 617-628.
[26] Halffter G & Matthews E.G. The natural history of dung beetles of the subfamily Scarabaeinae (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae). Folia EntomolOgica Mexicana, 1966, 12-14: 1-312.
[27] Halffter G. Evolution of nidifcation in the Scarabaeinae (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae). Quae-stiones Entomologicao, 1977, 13: 231-253.
[28] Halffter G & Edmonds W.D.. The nesting behavior of dung beetles (Scarabaeinae): an ecological and evolutive approach. 1982, p. 182. Institute de Ecologia, Mexico D.F..
[29] Fincher GT., Stewart T.B. & Davis R... Attraction of coprophagous beetle to feces of various animals. Journal of Parasitology, 1970, 56: 378-383.
[30] Davis A.L.V.. Associations of Afrotropical Coleoptera (Scarabeidae, Aphodiidae, Staphylinidae Hydrophilidae, Histeridae) with dung and decaying matter: implications for selection of fiy-control agents for Australia. Journal of Natural History, 1994, 28: 383-399.
[31] Martin-Piera & Lobo J.M.. A comparative discussion of trophic preferences in dung beetle communities. Miscellania Zoologica, 1996, 19: 13-31.
[32] Peck S.B. & Howden H.F.. Response of a dung beetle guild to different sizes of dung bait in a Panamanian rainforest. Biotropica, 1984, 16: 235-238.
[33] Horgan F.G. Burial of bovine dung by coprophagous beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabacidae) from hors and cow grazing sites in EI Salvador. Eur.J. Soil Biol., 2001, 37: 103-111.
[34] Hill C.J.. Habitat specificity and food preferences of an assemblage of tropical Australian dung beetles. Journal of Tropical Ecology, 1996, 12: 449-460.
[35] Davis J., Holloway J. D., Huijbregts H.. Dung beetles as indicators of change in the forests of northern Borneo. Journal of Applied Ecology, 2001, 38: 593-616.
[36] Halffter G & Favila M.E.. The Scarabaeinae (Insecta: Coleoptela): an animal proup for analyzing, inventorying and monitoring biodiversity in tropical rainforest and modified landscapes. Biology International, 1993, 27: 15-21.
[37] Favila M.E. & Halffter G. The use of indicator groups for measuring biodiversity as related to community structure and function. Acta Zoologica Mexico, 1997, 72: 1-25.
[38] Howden H. F. & Nealis V. G.. Effects of clearing in a tropical rain forest on the composition of the coprophagous scarab beetle fauna (Coteoptera). Biotropica, 1975, 7: 77-83.
[39] Halffer G., Favila M. E. & Halffter V.. A comparative study of the structure of the scarab guild in Mexican tropical rain forest and derived ecosystems. Folia Entomologica Mexicana, 1992, 84: 131-156.
[40] Hill C. J.. Linear strips of rain forest vegetation as potential dispersal corridors for rain forest insects. Conservation Biology, 1995, 9: 1559-1566.
[41] Davis A. J. & Sutton S. L.. The effects of rainforest canopy loss on arboreal dung beeries in Borneo: implications for the measurement of biodiversity in derived tropical ecosystems. Diversity and Distributions, 1998, 4: 167-173.
[42] Davis A. J.. Does reduced-impact logging help preserve biodiversity on tropical rainforests? A case study from Borneo using dung beetles as indicators. Environmental Entomology, 2000, 29: 467-475.
[43] Klein B. C.. Effects of forest fragmentation on dung and carrion beetle communities in central Amazonia. Ecology, 1989, 70: 1715-1725.
[44] Nummelin M. & Hanski I.. Dung beetles of the Kibale Forest, Uganda: comparison between virgin and managed forest. Journal of Tropical Ecology, 1989, 5: 349-352.
[45] McGeoch M. A.. The selection, testing and application of terrestrial insects as bioindicators. Biological reviews, 1998, 73: 181-201.
[46] Nilsson S. G., Arup U., Baranowski R. and Ekman S.. Tree-dependent lichns and beetles as indicators in conservation forests. Conservation Biology, 1995, 9: 1208-1215.
[47] McGeoch M. A., Rensburg B. J. V. and Botes A.. The verification and application of bioindicators: a case of dung beetles in a Savanna ecosystem. Journal of Applied Ecology, 2002, 39: 661-672
[48] 刘新民,刘永江,乌宁,等.内蒙古典型草原金龟总科昆虫群落动态及对放牧的响应.内蒙古大学学报(自然科擎版),2000,31(4):417-421.
[49] 刘新民,郭砺,乌宁,等.干旱、半干旱地区几种典型生境蛴螬群落特征比较研究.中国沙漠,2001,21(3):250-253.
[50] 刘新民.内蒙古典型草原蛴螬群落特征研究.[学位论文],内蒙古大学图书馆,内蒙古大学,2001.
[51] 袁庆华.高强度放牧对草地蛴螬种群数量的影响.草业学报,1995,4(1):30-35.
[52] 刘广瑞,章有为,王瑞.中国北方常见金龟子彩色图鉴.北京:中国林业出版社,1997,1-3.
[53] 黄人鑫,杜春华,张卫红.新疆金龟甲的区系组成及食性.昆虫学报,1999,42(1):70-77.
[54] 马耀,李鸿昌,康乐.内蒙古草地昆虫.陕西:天则出版社.1991,135-178.
[55] 张芝利.中国经济昆虫志 第二十八册 鞘翅目 金龟总科幼虫.北京:科学出版社,1984.18-93.
[56] 李江霖.雷雪鳃金龟的初步研究.昆虫知识,1987,3:165-167.
[57] 林平.西藏昆虫考察报告.昆虫学报,1965,14(4):390-393.
[58] 林平.中国弧丽金龟属志(鞘翅目:丽金龟科).陕西:天则出版社,1988,1-71.
[59] 能耐扎布.内蒙古昆虫.呼和浩特:内蒙古人民出版社.1999,140-151.
[60] 章有为.中国异爪犀金龟记述.动物分类学报,1983,8(3):297-300.
[61] 章有为.天山托木尔峰地区的生物.北京:科学出版社.1985,99-100.
[62] 章有为.中国犀金龟科系统分类.系统进化动物学论文集(第一集),1991,173-188.
[63] 谭仕东.双结菠萝鳃金龟的生物学特性及防治.昆虫知识,1991,28(1):22-23.
[64] 刘爱芝,李素娟,陶岭梅.花生蛴螬空间分布型研究及药效评价方法探讨.昆虫知识,2003,40(1):45-47.
[65] 刘书润,刘钟龄.内蒙古锡林河流域植物区系纲要.草原生态系统研究(内部资料),第二期,1982,210-262.
[66] 中国植被编辑委员会.中国植被.北京:科学出版社,1980,510-519.
[67] 中国科学院内蒙古宁夏综合考察队.内蒙古气候与农牧业的关系.北京:科学出版社,1976.45-51.
[68] 中国草地编辑委员会.中国草地资源.北京:中国科学技术出版社,1996,193.
[69] 中国科学院内蒙古宁夏综合考察队编.内蒙古植被.北京:科学出版社,1985,467-603.
[70] 李永宏,钟文勤,康乐,等.草原生态系统中不同生物功能类群及土壤因素间的互作和协同变化.见草原生态系统研究.第5集.北京:科学出版社.1997,1-11.
[71] 姜恕.中国科学院内蒙古草原生态系统定位站的建立与研究工作概述.见草原生态系统研究,第1集,北京:科学出版社,1985,1-11.
[72] 刘旭明,苗河,朱柏林.锡林郭勒盟生态环境现状.见张自学.二十世纪末内蒙古生态环境遥感调查研究.呼和浩特:内蒙古人民出版社,2001.260-266.
[73] 章祖同.内蒙古草地资源.呼和浩特:内蒙古人民出版社,1990,167.
[74] 雍世鹏.内蒙古锡林河流域自然植被分布概况.草原生态系统研究,1982,2:1-11.
[75] 陈敏.改良退化草地与建立人工草地的研究.呼和浩特:内蒙古人民出版社,1998.1-10.
[76] 蒙荣.放牧制度对大针茅草原影响的研究.[学位论文],内蒙古大学图书馆,内蒙古大学,2004,13-14.
[77] G. J. Arrow. The fauna of british India. Part Ⅰ. 1910. 1-322,
[78] G. J. Arrow. The fauna of british India. Part Ⅱ. 1917. 1-385.
[79] G. J. Arrow. The fauna of british India. Part Ⅲ. 1949. 1-428.
[80] Mededev S. I.. Fauna of USSR. 1951, Ⅹ.1.
[81] Mededev S. I.. Fauna of USSR. 1952, Ⅹ.2.
[82] Mededev S. I.. Fauna of USSR. 1949, Ⅹ.3.
[83] Mededev S. I.. Fauna of USSR. 1960, Ⅹ.4.
[84] Mededev S. I.. Fauna of USSR. 1964, Ⅹ.5.
[85] Balthasar, V. Monographie der Scarabaeidae und Aphodiidae der palaearktischen und orientalischen Region. 1963, Band Ⅰ, 1-391: Band Ⅱ, 1-627.
[86] 马文珍.中国经济昆虫志 第四十六册 鞘翅目:花金龟科、斑金龟科、弯腿金龟科.北京:科学出版社,1995,19-167
[87] 内蒙古国土资源编辑委员会.内蒙古国土资源.呼和浩特:内蒙古人民出版社,1987,134.
[88] 内蒙古草场资源遥感考察队.内蒙古草场资源遥感应用研究.呼和浩特:内蒙古大学出版社,1987,49.
[89] 中华人民共和国农业部畜牧兽医司全国畜牧兽医总站.中国草地资源.北京:中国科学出版社,1996,150.
[90] 王义凤,雍世鹏,刘钟龄,等.内蒙古植被.北京:科学出版社,1985,448-641.
[91] 李酉开,蒋柏藩,袁可能.土壤农业化学常规分析方法.北京:科学出版社,1983:79-104,244-298.
[92] 李博,杨持,林鹏.生态学.北京:高等教育出版社.2000,117-118;189-196.
[93] 刘新民,乌宁.大针茅草原蛴螬群落特征研究.应用生态学报.2004,15(9):1607-1610.
[94] 张金屯,数量生态学.北京:科学出版社,2004,133-140.
[95] 林红,李自珍.半干旱区作物生态位适宜度模型及水肥调控实验结果的定量分析.兰州大学学报,1998,34(1):100-105.
[96] 李自珍,施维林,唐海萍.等.干旱区植物水分生态位适宜度的数学模型及其过程数值模拟实验研究.中国沙漠,2001,21(3):281-285.
[97] 戈峰.现代生态学.北京:科学出版社,2002.215-221.
[98] A. Jankielsohn, C. H. Scholtz and S. V. Louw. Effect of habitat on dung beetle assemblages a comparison between a south African Nature Reserve and neighboring farms. Environmental Entomology, 2001, 30(3): 174-483.
[99] Grinell J. The niche relationship of the California thrasher. Auk, 1917, 21: 364-382
[100] Elton C. Animal ecology. London: Sidgewick and Jackson, 1927, 63-68
[101] 李自珍,黄子琛,唐海萍.沙区植物种的生态位适宜度过程数值模拟.兰州大学学报(自然科学版),1996,32(2):108-114.
[102] 李自珍,惠苍,徐中民,等.沙区植物生态位构建的数学模型及其应用研究.冰川冻土.2002,24(4):387-392.
[103] 马克平.生物群落多样性的测度方法Ⅰα多样性的测度方法(上).生物多样性,1994,2(3):162-168.
[104] Preston F. W.. The commonness and rarity of species. Ecology, 1948, 29: 254-283.
[105] 黄建辉.物种多样性的空间格局及其形成机制初探.生物多样性,1994,2(2):103-107.
[106] Connell J. H., Eduard O.. The ecological regulation of species diversity. The American Naturalist. 1964. 98: 33-46.
[107] Copley J. Ecology gose underground. Nature, 2000, 406: 452-454.
[108] 赵其国,周健民.为21世纪土壤学的创新发展作出新的贡献.土壤,2002,34(5):237-256.
[109] 《土壤动物研究方法手册》编写组.土壤动物研究方法手册.北京:中国林业出版社.1998, 1-12.
[110] 张荣祖.生态系统中国外土壤动物研究动态.森林生态系统研究.1980,(1):257-264.
[111] 徐国良,莫江明,周国逸,等.土壤动物与N素循环及对N沉降的响应.生态学报.2002,23(11):2453-2463.
[112] Haimi J. Frize H. and Moilanen. Responses of soil decomposer animals to wood-ash fertilization and burning in a coniferous forest stand. Forest Ecology and Management. 2000, 129: 53-61.
[113] Jones C. G., Lawton J. H. and Shachak M. Organisms as ecosystem engineers. Oikos. 1994, 69: 373-386.
[114] Lavelle P. Faunal activities and soil processes: adaptive strategies that determine ecosystem function, In: Etchevers J D, Aguilar A, Nunez R, et al. Eds. Trans. 15th world cong. SoilSci. 1, 1994. 189-220.
[115] 陈鹏,富德义.长白山土壤动物在物质循环中作用的初步探讨.生态学报.1984,4(2):1-9.
[116] Martin Zimmer and Werner Topp. The role of copropgagy in Nutrient release from feces of phytophagous insects. Soil Biology & Biochemistry. 2002, 34: 1093-1099.
[117] Wood T. G.. Field investigations on the decomposition of leaves of Eucalyptus delegatensis in relation to environmental factirs. Pedobiologia, 1974, 14, 343-371.
[118] Hassall M., Turner J. G., Rands, M. R. W.. Effects of terrestrial isopods on the decomposition of woodland leaf litter. Oecologia, 1987, 72, 597-604.
[119] Facelli J. M., Pickett S. T. A.. Plant litter: its dynamics andeffects on paints community structure. Biochemistry, 1991, 18, 595-600.
[120] 贾树海,崔学明,李绍良,等.牧压梯度上土壤物理性质的变化.见草原生态系统研究.北京:科学出版社.1997,5:12-16.
[121] 关世英,齐沛钦,康师安,等.不同牧压强度对草原土壤养分含量的影响初析.见草原生态系统研究.北京:科学出版社.1997,5:17-22.
[122] 李永宏,汪诗平.草原植物对家畜放牧的繁殖对策初探.见草原生态系统研究.北京:科学出版社.1997,5:23-31.
[123] 王梦军,钟文勤,王桂明,等.典型草原区草-鼠群落对对放牧梯度的协同变化.见草原生态系统研究.北京:科学出版社.1997,5:32-42.
[124] 康乐,陈永林.典型草原蝗虫种群数量、生物量和能量的比较研究.见草原生态系统研究.北京:科学出版社.1992,4:141-150.
[125] 柳丽萍,廖仰南.羊草草原和大针茅草原不同牧压下的土壤微生物生物特性及其多样性.见草原生态系统研究.北京:科学出版社.1997,5:70-79.
[126] 顾新运,李淑秋.放牧强度对草原土壤超显微特征的影响.见草原生态系统研究.北京:科学出版社.1997,5.80-87.
[127] West N E. Biodiversity of rangelands. J. Range Management, 1993, 46(1): 2-13.
[128] M. A. McGeoch. The selection, testing and application of terrestrial insects as bioindicators. Biotogical Reviews, 1998, 73, 181-201.
[129] 梁文举,葛亭魁,段玉玺.土壤健康及土壤动物生物指示的研究与应用.沈阳农业大学学报,2001-02,32(1):70-72.
[130] A. J. Davis. Does reduced-impact logging help preserve biodiversity on tropical rainforests? A case study from Borneo using dung beetles as indicators. Environmental Entomology, 2000, 29: 467-475.
[131] A. J. Davis, J. D. Holloway, H. Huijbregts. Dung beetles as indicators of change in the forests of northern Borneo. Journal of Applied Ecology, 2001, 38: 593-616.
[132] M. E. Favila & G. Halffter. The use of indicator groups for measuring biodiversity as related to community structure and function. Acta Zoologica Mexico, 1997, 72: 1-25.
[133] 柯欣,岳巧云,傅荣恕,等.浦东滩涂中型土壤动物群落结构及土质酸碱度生物评价分析.动物学研究,2002,23(2):129-135.
[134] Dufrene M. & Legendre P., 1997. Species assemblages and indicator species: the need for a flexible asymmetrical approach. Ecological Monographys, 67: 345-366.
[135] 杨星科.广西十万大山地区昆虫.北京:中国林业出版社,2004,339-3(?)7.
[136] 任国栋,侯麟.皮金龟科的分类研究进展.昆虫知识,2003,40(6):505-508.
[137] 任国栋.中国皮金龟科分类研究.昆虫分类学报,2003,25(2):109-117.
[138] 松树松年.日本昆虫大图鉴.东京:刀江书院,1931,309-322.
[139] 石井悌,江崎悌三,木下周太.日本昆虫图鉴.东京:北隆馆,1957,1304-1321.
[140] 于晓东,罗天宏,周红章.北京东灵山地区金龟群落物种组成及多样性变化.生物多样性,2003,11(3):179-187.
[141] Shibuya T. & Inouchi J.. Fine Stucture and odor responses of olfactory sensilla of the Japanese dung deetle, Copris pecuarius (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Japanese Journal of Applied Entomology and Zoology, 1982, 26: 194-195.
[142] Davis A. L. V.. Appendix 2. Evolution and biogeography of dung beetles in relation to vertebrate dung types with emphasis on the Scarabaeinae and Coprinae. Climatic change, habitat modification and relative age of dung beetle taxa (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae, Hydrophilidae, Histeridae, Staphylinidae) in the south-western Cape. 1990, pp. 72-100. PhD Thesis. University of Cape Town. Cape Town.
[143] Davis A. L. V. & Schottz C. H.. Historical vs, ecological factors influencing global patterns of scaraeine dung beetle diversity. Diversity and Distributions. 2001, 7: 161-174.
[144] Lobo J. M. and Halffter G.. Biogeographical and ecological affecting the altitudinal variation of mountainous communities of Coprophagous beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeoidea): a comparative study. Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 2000, 93(1): 0115-0126.
[145] Halffter G. and Arellano L.. Response of dung beetle diversity to human-induced changes in tropical landscape. Biotropica, 2002, 34(1): 144-154.
[146] Verdu J. R. and Galante E.. Climatic stress, food availability and human activity as determinants of endemism patterns in the Mediterranean region: the case of dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeoidea)in the Iberian Peninsula. Diversity and Distributions, 2002, 8: 259-274.
[147] Hanski I. & Krikken J.. Dung beetles in tropical forest in South-East Asia. Dung beetle ecology (eds Ⅰ. Hanski & Y. Cambefort), 1991, pp. 179-197. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
[148] Hanski I. and Cambefort Y.. Spatial processes. Dung beetle ecology (eds Ⅰ. Hanski & Y. Cambefort), 1991, pp. 283-304. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
[149] Hanski I. and Koskela H.. Resouce partitioning in six guilds of dung-inhabiting beetles (Coleoptera). Ann Entomol Fenn., 1979, 45: 1-12.
[150] Hanski I.. The community of coprophagous beetles (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae and Hydrophilidae) in northern Europe. Ann Entomol Fenn, 1980, 46: 57-73.
[151] Holter P.. Resource utilization and local coexistence in a guild of scarabaeid dung beetles(Aphodius spp.). Oikos, 1982, 39: 213-227.
[152] Gittings T. and Giller P. S.. Life history traits and resource utilisation in an assemblage of north ternperate Aphodius dung beetles(Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Ecography, 1997, 20: 55-66.
[153] Roslin T. and Koivunen A.. Distribution and abundance of dung beetles in fragmented landscapes. Oecologia, 2001, 127: 69-77.
[154] Nealis V. G.. Habitat associations and community analysis of south Texas dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeinae). Canadian Journal of Zoology, 1977, 5: 38—147.
[155] Doube B. M.. The habitat preference of some bovine dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) in Hluhluwe Game Reserve, South Africa. Bulletin of Entomological Research, 1983, 73: 357-371.
[156] Bornemissza G. F.. The Australian dung beetle project 1965-1975. Aust. Meat Res. Commun. Rev., 1976, 30: 1-30.
[157] Edwards P. B., Aschenbom H. H.. Parterns of nesting and dung burial in Onitis dung beetles: implications for pasture productivity and fly control. J. Appl. Ecol., 1987, 24: 837-852.
[158] Tyndale-Biscoe M., Wallace M. M. H., Walker J. M.. Anecologieal study of an Australian dung beetle, Onthophagus granulatus Boheman (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae), using physiological age-grading technique. Bull. Entomol. Res., 1981, 71: 137-152.
[159] Ridsdill-Smith T. J.. Asymmetric competition in cattle dung between two species of Onthophagus dung beetle and the bush fly, Musca vetustissima. Ecol. Entomol., 1993, 18: 241-246.
[160] Ellen Andresen. Dung beetles in a central Amazonian rainforest and their ecological role as secondary seeddispersers. Ecol. Entomol., 2002, 27: 257-270.
[161] Janzen D. H.. Insects at carrion and dung. Costa Rican Natural History (ed. D. H. Janzen). 1983, pp. 640-642. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
[162] Brown J. H.-On the relationship between the abundance and distribution of species. American Naturalist, 1984, 124: 255-279.
[163] Gaston K. J., Blackburn T. M. & Lawton J. H.. Inmterspecific abundance-range size relationships: an appraisal of mechanisms. Journal of Animat Ecology, 1997, 66: 579-601.
[164] Jenkins D. W.. Global biological monitoring. Mans Impact on Terrestrial and Oceanic Ecosystems (eds W. H. Matthews, F. E. Smith & E. D. Goldberg). 1971, pp. 351-370. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
[165] Kremen C., Merenlander A. M. & Murhpy D. D.. Ecological monitoring: a vital need for integrated conservation and development programs in the tropics. Conservation biology, 1994, 8: 388-397.